On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 11:06:05AM -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-11-01 at 22:59 -0500, Josef Jeff Sipek wrote:
...
> > +static inline struct inode *
> > +__fsstack_lower_inode(struct inode *inode, unsigned long branch_idx)
> > +{
> > + struct fsstack_inode_info *info = fsstack_inode_data(inode);
> > +
> > + return info->inodes[branch_idx];
> > +}
>
> What is the value of "functions" like the above? They appear just to
> obfuscate the code. Unless your aim is to hide the internals of the
> struct __fsstack_inode_generic_info (sort of futile, since you are
> asking users to include that structure in their private inode structs)
> then it is much more obvious to see what is going on when you write
>
> inode = FSSTACK_I(inode)->inodes[branch];
>
> rather than
>
> inode = __fsstack_lower_inode(inode, branch);
I was thinking about this a bit, and it would seem that not having get/set
function pretty much kills the reson to have generic pointer structures at
all.
Would it make sense to change filesystems like ecryptfs to open-code all
these things instead of using _their own_ get/set functions (e.g.,
ecryptfs_inode_to_lower)?
Other posibility is to move the lower pointers into generic VFS objects in
some clever way (not to waste memory on regular filesystems) - this way, the
stackable filesystems can still share some parts.
Josef "Jeff" Sipek.
--
A computer without Microsoft is like chocolate cake without mustard.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
